• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Wrong Time to Cut Troops in Korea

The Bush administration plans to make significant additional cuts in the size of US troop deployments in South Korea. Such reductions may leave North Korean leaders with the impression that it is their recently enhanced nuclear capabilities that are driving the American withdrawal and embolden the reclusive state to take provocative actions in the months before to the US election.

Link Copied
Published on Jun 7, 2004
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

Press reports indicate that the Bush administration plans to make significant additional cuts in the size of US troop deployments in South Korea. These come on top of the transfer of 3,600 American troops from South Korea to Iraq announced last month. The cut may ultimately lead to a one-third reduction of the 37,000 troops that defend South Korea from a possible strike by the North. More importantly, however, these troops help reinforce deterrence and stability in the most heavily militarized part of the world and their reduction may pose unnecessary risks in this dangerous part of the world. Such reductions may leave North Korean leaders with the impression that it is their recently enhanced nuclear capabilities that are driving the American withdrawal and embolden the reclusive state to take provocative actions in the months before to the US election.

The Bush administration deserves credit for seeking to transform the military to deal with new threats and to further enhance its global reach and reaction time. The demands of undertaking such changes would be daunting at any time, let alone when the US military must contend with a dangerous war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and global commitments in the war on terrorism. But there is also the very real and growing danger of a nuclear North Korea. This means that certain commitments must be maintained or enhanced, even at the price of slowing military transformation. By some estimates, North Korea may now possess as many as 9 nuclear weapons, four times the estimated arsenal when President Bush took office.

The facts on the ground in Korea may argue for an increase, not a decrease, in the size and nature of the US military deployments in South Korea and East Asia. North Korea’s continued nuclear program and the failure of current efforts to stop and roll back Pyongyang’s activities threaten to destabilize the entire region. Any sign that the US is not committed to the defense of our closest allies in the region only add to the danger and instability. Preserving and enhancing the US-ROK-Japanese alliance should be a top priority for the United States.

North AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaSouth KoreaNorth KoreaForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNuclear Energy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • China Financial Markets
    Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

    China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.

      Michael Pettis

  • Article
    The Iran War Shows the Limits of U.S. Power

    If Washington cannot adapt to the ongoing transformations of a multipolar world, its superiority will become a liability.

      Amr Hamzawy

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Equivocating on Turkey Is Bad Geopolitics

    Following Ursula von der Leyen’s gaffe equating Turkey to Russia and China, relations with Ankara risk deteriorating even further. Without better, more consistent diplomatic messaging, how can the EU pretend to be a geopolitical power?

      Sinan Ülgen

  • Woman standing amid debris from buildings
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump’s National Security Decisionmaking Is Broken

    Here’s why—and what the next president needs to do to fix the process.

      Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.